Scientists Baffled-New Discoveries-Darwinian Evolution Crumbling-Scientists Abandon Theory

No one knows when the first printing press was invented, or who invented it, but the oldest known printed text originated in China during the first millennium A.D. ... The Diamond Sutra was created with a method known as block printing, which utilized panels of hand-carved wood blocks in reverse


Fair enough, my bad. I didn't say the printing pree was mad by God but for the bible. Sorry, maybe it was that the bible is or was the most printed book?!?! Either way saying that someone can\t invent something due to their faith is asinine.

Last Edited by musashi777 on 11/29/2018 08:56 AM

Unlike gods, natural processes have been proven to exist. Most people who accept evolution are not atheists. They just don't believe that god literally used magic to make a man out of dirt.

Abiogenesis is a hypothesis that attempts to explain the origin of life through natural processes. It doesn't prevent you from believing a god created natural processes and uses them to create life.



You've got that backwards, without the printing press the Bible wouldn't have been so readily available to the public.

What are 'Darwinists' (kind of an outdated term) taking credit for? You're not making sense.

No body said that those with faith can't do science, Darwin actually wanted to be a preacher.

This argument makes no sense whatsoever.
The desire to have lots of affordable bibles isn't the cause of the invention of movable type, it just made printing an economical successful invention.

Inventions are ideas people have.
The success of an invention depends on there being a market for its product.
Most inventions never make it.

Print wasn't invented to reproduce religious texts, print was invented because somebody put 1 and 2 together and got a practical result.
It doesn't require faith, just ingenuity.
Bibles were printed because there was a big demand for affordable bibles.

If bibles hadn't existed there still would have been a market for other affordable mass-produced texts.
After all, there was.

IOW faith has nothing to do with inventing it, and nobody said people with faith can't be inventive or creative.


The success of printing also depended on the availability of paper, anything else doesn't last in the wet cold northern climate or is way to expensive.

99% FAKE NEWS

I'm not in any way a religitard, but evolutionary theory really isn't a theory in perfectly scientific terms and was never very sound a long time before this new info.

I don't have a problem with the idea (and it really was only ever an unsubstantiated idea) of gradualistic evolution, but the mechanism or mechanisms by which it could actually happen on a biochemical level have never been identified.

However, just because current evolutionary thinking is flawed and incomplete, does not make special creation true. Special creation does not even contain information and even if true, would not preclude investigation as to how it happened. "God spoke", is neither information or an answer to anything. What is God, and what is meant by him speaking are just two obvious questions that show the uselessness of the Bible story in regard to actually understanding anything.

Currently, all forms of evolution or creation are just forms of belief and require considerable faith to accept. There is nothing wrong with that as long as it is understood.

Everytime science tries to disprove God they end up proving Him.
[link to m.facebook.com (secure)]

Only if you already believe in God. If one is agnostic it just appears as if we barely know shit about anything.

Last Edited by Rentaigen on 11/29/2018 12:14 PM

that ONLY "proves" SOMETHING (or SOMEONE) "made" an amphibie - by creating from scratch but with some similar systems and structures to existent fishes' OR mutating several fish's structures AT ONCE in a VERY FEW generations...

THAT DOES NOT "prove" some fish line happened to evolve "by chance" to an anphibe and begun a whole new line ;)

as one mentioned earlier, A WHOLE BUNCH of systems must "adapt" AT SAME TIME FRAME to be useful to the new form and not HARMFUL to the survival of PREVIOUS form, in a case of "evolving" (not "adapting" like red/White fox other also mentioned earling) - and... chances for such... are pretty LOWwww

this happens because THEY are rational beings
are you comparing human beings INTENTIONALLY working with codes and tech with "RANDOM" NATURE? two completely diferent principles of action, the first has INTENTION, the other don't (as evolutionist afirm, "just chances")
or nature would be "conscious" like those engineers you've mentioned so that it "chose" the MEWTHOD?

Dont mind Australia.

He doesn't believe in intention, purpose, design, function, properties, systems.

He believes humans have these abilities, all the rest is unproven supernatural bs, he prefers the 'nature/time/anything but a creator' did it story.
The pop science approach, which is not a belief ofcourse.

God used words to bring the universe and everything in it into being.





When you can appreciate sacred geometry and super symmetry can you get a glimpse into the wonderful mind of The Lord.. If you cannot see this you are probably mundane..

You don't speak for me dipshit.

How about you stop saying what I supposedly believe and offer an argument for once.

Genetic algorithms apply random changes and then select the changes that offer an advantage. These algorithms were based on evolutionary principles. The fact that programmers are rational beings is irrelevant. In nature, random mutations occur, and the environment is the filter that selects beneficial mutations, while removing negative ones.

Nature is not random. Gravity, for example, pulls things down, it doesn't shoot matter off in random directions. Nature selects mutations that offer an advantage in a specific environment. This is not random.

If you believe God is omniscient, then nothing at all is random because he knew every single event that would occur from the moment of creation.

What are you talking about? We can directly observe evolution. The mechanisms are mutation, natural selection, genetic drift, speciation, transposable elements and more. All these things have been observed.

There's no faith required.

But this is exactly what you believe.

No argument will ever suffice due to the fact you have your mind made up, blinded by the stupidity of pop science.

It's like me asking to you to prove to me that your mind exists, or the little voice in your head or your yesterday dreams on how to cure cancer.

We all know it's there, we all know such things exists, but you cannot prove them to be real or tangible, therefor you think such things are supernatural by definition and thus do not exist.

You are not the only evotard out there boy. I've heard all the idiocy before.

"But this is exactly what you believe."

Nope. Not even close.

"No argument will ever suffice due to the fact you have your mind made up, blinded by the stupidity of pop science."

I've already changed my mind in the past, so you're wrong. I am open minded. You can pretend that I'm not, but this is just your excuse for not actually making any arguments. Let me ask you, what would change your mind about evolution? Evolution could be falsified by a single out of place fossil. A Cambrian rabbit for example. What would convince you?

"It's like me asking to you to prove to me that your mind exists, or the little voice in your head or your yesterday dreams on how to cure cancer.
We all know it's there, we all know such things exists, but you cannot prove them to be real or tangible, therefor you think such things are supernatural by definition and thus do not exist."

You're an idiot. I don't believe the mind is supernatural, I suspect it's the opposite. I think the mind doesn't exist? What the hell are you talking about you lunatic?

You have no idea what I believe. You're making a strawman. Attacking me, because again, you have no arguments. You have to misrepresent my position, and pretend that I'm unreasonable, because you can't actually argue with anything I say.

"You are not the only evotard out there boy. I've heard all the idiocy before."

If you've heard it all before, why are you still wrong about everything?

Again, stop talking about me and stick to the arguments. Don't tell me what I believe, don't make some petty attack against my character, explain why evolution is wrong and Creationism is correct.

Last Edited by Spur-Man on 11/30/2018 05:34 AM

This just demonstrates that like most science-deniers you don't actually understand what the science says.
It does NOT say "by chance."

If you base your opinions not just on ignorance but on actual disinformation you are inevitable going to get it wrong.

Those things are observed to to cause minor variation within a species. The more we learn about them, we find they are variations that are genetically programmed responses to environmental differences.

Progressive, continuous, and novel creationt of new genetic information has not been observed and is only assumed to happen.

One of the problems is most biologists are not very scientifically adept and have poor mathematical, physics, chemistry and biochemical knowledge or training. The threshold for publication in biology journals is is also laughable compared to hard sciences. Most of the supposed evidence for evolution is little more than visual observation of how such and such a thing looks like some other thing so they must be related.

Genetics and biochemistry are not that simple however and most of the claims made by evolution believers are stunningly obsurd in light of hard science. The progression of the human eye as proposed by, I think Earnst Mayr is a perfect example of this. It is so ridiculous on the biochemical level that Earnst or whoever came up with it should be bared from funding or inclusion in science forever. Just because things look similar doesn't mean they are even remotely alike on the granular level or have any hope of morphing from one thing to another.

I know the mechanisms for macro evolution are stated to have been found. I find them totally unable to perform task. Thus my position that the fundamental mechanism(s) have not been found. That doesn't mean they wont't.

For what it is worth though I don't really care what people think one way or the other about how life began. I've forgotten more about the whole debate than most people will ever know simply because I don't think it is an either or discussion, nor do I think we have the knowledge or power to make much headway in my lifetime. Our origins just aren't particularly relevant to the advancement of science and knowledge which by necessity must come before we can understand our origins.

bump for later

The faith that is required is believing that the universe came into existence by chance.

You don't know what speciation means do you? If you did, you wouldn't say it causes variation within a species. These mechanisms do result in the appearance of new genes, they are not just expressions of already existing genes, if that's what you're saying.

Further more, even changes that occur within a species still count as evolution.



That's completely false. Transposable elements are capable of introducing entirely new gene sequences, and mutations are known to add base pairs to DNA. As you should know, all animals use the same 4 base pairs in their DNA. The DNA of different species differs only in the size of the genetic sequence, and the order of these base pairs.



That's an unfair generalization about biologists, and possibly an ad hominem fallacy. Biology is not a hard science? I doubt you've actually looked at the evidence, because it is far more than comparative anatomy. Have you ever heard of ERV's? Are you aware of phylogeny, and how this system of classification perfectly matches the sequence in which organisms appear in the fossil record?

I think you're pretending to understand this subject more than you actually do.



We may not know exactly how the eye came about, but we can look at nature to see a wide range of eyes of varying complexity. From simple photo sensitive cell patches, all the way up to eyes more complex than our own. The gradual development of the eye is not a problem for evolution theory.



We see them perform the task right in front of us. They have been found. We will find more, and our understanding of evolution will change, but it's ridiculous to pretend that evolution is just some 'faith' with nothing backing it up. Creationism is nowhere near being on equal footing.



We don't need to understand our origins to know that populations do diverge and change with time. I'm curious how much of evolution theory you actually reject. For example, do you believe that all felines share a common ancestor?

I don't know why you want to project faith onto others so badly. Is there something wrong with faith?

You don't know what you're talking about. The Big bang theory was created by a priest. Big bang does not equal atheism. Evolution does not equal atheism. And atheists don't necessarily believe the universe came about by chance.

Last Edited by Spur-Man on 11/30/2018 10:26 AM

If strawmen is all you know how to fight you've already lost.

You realize that has nothing to with evolution right?

Ha, argumentum ad wootubam!
For people who can't do their own thinking.

The strawman I was referring to was YOUR CLAIM that science claims the Universe came about by change.
To PROOF that (very false) claim would require a SCIENTIFIC reference, not talking-heads.


Last Edited by Halcyon Dayz, FCD on 11/30/2018 10:41 AM

(Pertaining to the random creation of the universe, and for it to have self organised itself in the way it is shaped today.)


It would be like tossing a coin and it coming up as heads

ten quintilian times in a row.

10,000,000,000,000,000,000.







Last Edited by musashi777 on 11/30/2018 10:43 AM

other than everything... I would like to fool around with you guys longer but I have to go running around for a while...

Everything? What do you think evolution is? Because in biology it refers to how living populations change and diversify with time.

Let's make this simple. Do you think that all equines share a common ancestor?